Final Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies, 33016-33025 [2015-14126]

Agencies

• FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
• National Credit Union Administration
• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
• Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
• DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
• BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
• Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33016-33025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14126]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

[Docket ID OCC-2013-0014]

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

[Docket No. OP-1465]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75050; File No. S7-10-15]


Final Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards 
for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities 
Regulated by the Agencies

AGENCIES:  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC); National Credit Union Administration 
(NCUA); Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB); and Securities 
and Exchange Commission (SEC).

ACTION: Notice of final interagency policy statement; request for 
comments on proposed collection of information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, and SEC are issuing a final 
interagency policy statement establishing joint standards for assessing 
the diversity policies and practices of the entities they regulate, as 
required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act of 2010.

DATES: The final interagency policy statement is effective on June 10, 
2015. The agencies are soliciting comments only on the collection of 
information. Comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2015. 
The effective date of the collection of information will be announced 
in the Federal Register following Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    OCC: Joyce Cofield, Executive Director, Office of Minority and 
Women Inclusion, at (202) 649-6460 or Karen McSweeney, Counsel, Law 
Department, at (202) 649-6295, TDD/TTY (202) 649-5597, Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
    BOARD: Sheila Clark, Director, Office of Diversity and Inclusion, 
at (202) 452-2883, Katherine Wheatley, Associate General Counsel, Legal 
Division, at (202) 452-3779, or Alye Foster, Senior Special Counsel, 
Legal Division, at (202) 452-5289.
    FDIC: Segundo Pereira, Director, Office of Minority and Women 
Inclusion, (703) 562-6090; Melodee Brooks, Senior Deputy Director, 
Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, (703) 562-6090; or Robert Lee, 
Counsel, Legal Division, (703) 562-2020, Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429-0002.
    NCUA: Wendy A. Angus, Acting Director, Office of Minority and Women 
Inclusion at (703) 518-1650, Cynthia Vaughn, Diversity Outreach Program 
Analyst, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, at (703) 518-1650, or 
Regina Metz, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at (703) 518-
6540, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, 
Alexandria, VA 22314.
    CFPB: Stuart Ishimaru, Director, Office of Minority and Women 
Inclusion, at (202) 435-9012, or Stephen VanMeter, Deputy General 
Counsel, Legal Division at (202) 435-7319, Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
    SEC: Pamela A. Gibbs, Director, Office of Minority and Women 
Inclusion, (202) 551-6046, or Audrey B. Little, Senior Counsel, Office 
of Minority and Women Inclusion, (202) 551-6086, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act or Act) required the OCC, Board, 
FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, and SEC (each, an Agency and collectively, the 
Agencies) to each establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion 
(OMWI) to be responsible for all matters of the Agency relating to 
diversity in management, employment, and business activities.\1\ The 
Act also instructed each OMWI Director to develop standards for 
assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by 
the Agency. To facilitate the use of these standards by regulated 
entities that are subject to the regulations of more than one Agency, 
the Agencies worked together to develop joint standards and issue this 
Final Interagency Policy Statement (Policy Statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 342 of the Act is codified at 12 U.S.C. 5452. The 
Department of Treasury, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the 
Federal Reserve Banks also have established an OMWI, but only the 
federal financial agencies with regulated entities have joined in 
issuing this Policy Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to drafting these standards, the OMWI Directors held a series 
of roundtable discussions and teleconferences with representatives of a 
variety of regulated entities, including depository institutions, 
holding companies, and industry trade groups, to solicit their views on 
appropriate standards and to learn about the successes and challenges 
of existing diversity policies and programs. In addition, the OMWI 
Directors met with financial professionals, consumer advocates, and 
community representatives to gain a greater understanding of the issues 
confronting minorities and women in obtaining employment and business 
opportunities within the financial services industry. The information 
and feedback provided during these outreach sessions guided the 
development of these standards.

II. Proposed Policy Statement

    On October 25, 2013, the Agencies published a Notice in the Federal 
Register requesting comment on a ``Proposed Interagency Policy 
Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity 
Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies'' 
(Proposal).\2\ The comment period on the Proposal was scheduled to 
close on December 24, 2013, but in response to requests from members of 
the public, the Agencies extended it to February 7, 2014.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 78 FR 64052.
    \3\ 78 FR 77792.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposal set out standards for assessing an entity's diversity 
policies and practices in the following areas: Organizational 
Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion; Workforce Profile and Employment 
Practices; Procurement and Business Practices--Supplier Diversity; and 
Practices to Promote Transparency of Organizational Diversity and 
Inclusion. These proposed standards reflected the leading policies and 
practices for advancing workforce and supplier diversity.
    The Proposal also explained the Agencies' approach to assessments,

[[Page 33017]]

noting that the assessment envisioned by the Agencies would not be a 
part of the examination or supervisory process. Instead, the Proposal 
provided that a ``model assessment'' would include a self-assessment by 
an entity of its diversity policies and practices using the proposed 
standards; voluntary disclosure of the self-assessment to the 
appropriate Agency; and publication by the entity of its diversity 
efforts, in order to increase the public's awareness and understanding. 
The Proposal also stated that the Agencies may periodically review this 
public information to monitor diversity and inclusion practices and 
reach out to regulated entities to discuss diversity and inclusion.
    In drafting the proposed standards, the Agencies recognized that 
each entity has unique characteristics, such as its governance 
structure, workforce size, total assets, contract volume, geographic 
location, and community characteristics. To reflect this, throughout 
the Proposal, the Agencies stated that the standards may be tailored 
and used in a manner reflective of an individual entity's size and 
other characteristics. In developing the Proposal, the Agencies were 
also mindful of section 342(b)(4) of the Act, which states that the 
directive to develop standards may not be construed to mandate any 
requirement on or otherwise affect the lending policies and practices 
of any regulated entity, or to require any specific action based on the 
findings of the assessment.

III. Comment Summary and the Agencies' Response

    The Agencies collectively received more than 200 comments on the 
Proposal, although some commenters submitted either multiple comments 
or identical or substantially similar comments to multiple Agencies. 
The comments reflected the views of interested parties, including 
financial institutions, public interest organizations, trade 
associations and organizations, government officials, and other members 
of the public. In general, the commenters supported the concept of 
diversity and inclusion, particularly in the workforce. A number of 
commenters applauded the Agencies for jointly developing standards, 
while others commended the Proposal's flexible approach. Other 
commenters, however, expressed concern about the Proposal. Some urged 
the Agencies to withdraw the proposed standards, while others suggested 
specific changes to address certain issues.
    The Agencies carefully considered all of these comments in 
formulating the final Policy Statement. The discussion below addresses 
significant issues that commenters raised and explains the changes to 
the Policy Statement.

A. General Comments

1. Legal Effect
    The Agencies received several comments that interpreted the 
Proposal to impose new legal requirements on regulated entities or to 
mandate specific actions. Some commenters argued that these 
requirements and mandates exceeded the Agencies' statutory authority 
and were unlawful. For example, several commenters interpreted 
references to ``metrics'' in the Proposal to require or strongly 
encourage quotas in hiring and contracting. Others expressed concern 
that the new requirements would impose a significant compliance burden, 
particularly on small entities. For example, some commenters 
interpreted the standards to require entities to develop methods for 
assessing supplier diversity, and they argued that this was unduly 
burdensome for small entities.
    Other commenters stated that the Proposal used ``prescriptive'' 
language, from which they inferred that some level of compliance with 
the standards would be expected from regulated entities. These 
commenters urged the Agencies to draft the final standards as 
``recommendations'' and clarify that the final Policy Statement is a 
guidance document. Another commenter requested that the Agencies frame 
the final Policy Statement as a ``best practices'' guide with which 
regulated entities were not required to comply.
    In contrast, some commenters stated that the inclusion of new 
requirements or mandates in the standards was consistent with the plain 
language of section 342(b)(2)(C). For example, some commenters argued 
that the Agencies should require the regulated entities to provide them 
with information about their diversity policies and practices, 
including assessment information. Others stated that the congressional 
intent of section 342 was to promote diversity and inclusion to the 
maximum extent possible and noted that the Proposal sets only minimum 
standards.
    In light of these comments, it is clear that Agencies need to 
provide additional guidance about the intended legal effect of the 
final Policy Statement. To this end, the Agencies have added the 
following language: ``This document is a general statement of policy 
under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It does not 
create new legal obligations. Use of the Standards by a regulated 
entity is voluntary.'' The Agencies believe that this will clarify the 
confusion noted above.
2. Meaning of ``Diversity''
    Several commenters raised questions about the meaning of 
``diversity,'' which the Proposal did not define. A few commenters 
requested the Agencies define the term to avoid differing 
interpretations, with one commenter stating that the standards would 
not be useful in the absence of a definition. Several commenters 
suggested definitions, ranging from a definition limited to minorities 
and women to an expanded definition that would include individuals with 
disabilities, veterans, and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) 
individuals. Another commenter recommended also defining ``inclusion,'' 
to make clear that the goal of diversity is not met by simply hiring a 
diverse group.
    The Agencies agree that the term ``diversity'' should be defined. 
They also believe it should both reflect the general focus in section 
342 on minorities and women and provide flexibility to regulated 
entities that define the term more broadly. Accordingly, the final 
Policy Statement provides that ``diversity'' refers to ``minorities . . 
. and women.'' For purposes of this definition, ``minority'' is defined 
as Black Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian 
Americans, which is consistent with the definition of ``minority'' in 
section 342(g)(3) of the Act.
    The final Policy Statement also states that this definition of 
diversity ``does not preclude an entity from using a broader definition 
with regard to these standards.'' This language is intended to be 
sufficiently flexible to encompass other groups if an entity wants to 
define the term more broadly. For example, a broader definition may 
include the categories referenced by the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) in its Employer Information Report EEO-1 (EEO-1 
Report),\4\ as well

[[Page 33018]]

as individuals with disabilities, veterans, and LGBT individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Private employers with 100 or more employees and federal 
contractors and first-tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees 
that have a contract or subcontract of $50,000 or more, or serve as 
depository of Government funds in any amount, are required by Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to collect data on employment 
diversity and file an EEO-1 Report with the EEOC.
    The EEO-1 Report defines race and ethnicity categories as 
Hispanic or Latino; White (Not Hispanic or Latino); Black or African 
American (Not Hispanic or Latino); Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 
Islander (Not Hispanic or Latino); Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino); 
American Indian or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic or Latino); and Two 
or More Races (Not Hispanic or Latino). https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/2007instructions.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agencies also agree that the concept of inclusion is important 
to include in these standards because current leading practices 
advocate an inclusive culture as essential in the support of diversity 
and inclusion programs. Therefore, the final Policy Statement defines 
``inclusion'' to mean a process to create and maintain a positive work 
environment that values individual similarities and differences, so 
that all can reach their potential and maximize their contributions to 
an organization.''
3. Applicability to Small Entities
    Although the Proposal encouraged the use of the standards ``in a 
manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other 
characteristics,'' the Agencies received questions and comments about 
how the standards apply or are relevant to small entities. Some 
commenters stated that the Proposal offered a ``one-size fits all 
approach'' and should be replaced with standards that reflect the 
unique structure of small entities. Another commenter noted that many 
small regulated entities do not have boards of directors, Web sites, or 
other attributes referenced in the Proposal. According to this 
commenter, even with the Proposal's caveat that the standards may be 
tailored for small entities, these organizations would be at a 
disadvantage when measuring their policies and practices in light of 
the proposed standards. Others suggested that the Policy Statement 
expressly carve out entities below a certain size, such as those with 
fewer than 100 employees or those that do not file EEO-1 Reports.
    These comments demonstrate that the Agencies need to clarify how 
the standards are relevant to and may be used by small entities. 
Therefore, the final Policy Statement states, ``The Agencies recognize 
that each entity is unique with respect to characteristics such as its 
size, location, and structure. When drafting these standards, the 
Agencies focused primarily on institutions with more than 100 
employees. The Agencies know that institutions that are small or 
located in remote areas face different challenges and have different 
options available to them compared to entities that are larger or 
located in more urban areas. The Agencies encourage each entity to use 
these standards in a manner appropriate to its unique 
characteristics.''
4. Extraterritorial Application
    A few commenters requested that the Agencies clarify whether the 
standards apply to a regulated entity's foreign operations. These 
commenters observed that many regulated entities operate 
internationally and that the concept of diversity varies from country 
to country. They advocated that regulated entities be allowed the 
flexibility to include or exclude foreign operations when conducting an 
assessment. In response, the final Policy Statement clarifies that the 
final standards address an entity's U.S. operations. This does not, 
however, preclude a multinational entity from also using these 
standards to undertake a broader assessment of its organization.

B. Comments on the Joint Standards

1. Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion
    The first set of standards in the Proposal addressed the role and 
importance of an entity's senior leadership in promoting diversity and 
inclusion across an organization. These standards described the 
policies and practices that demonstrate the commitment of an entity's 
senior leadership to diversity and inclusion in both employment and 
contracting, as well as to fostering a corporate culture that embraces 
diversity and inclusion.
    Commenters were generally supportive of including standards to 
assess an organization's commitment, with several referencing the 
importance of diversity and inclusion in their own organizations. Some 
commenters noted that an organization's commitment to diversity and 
inclusion can provide a competitive advantage. Another stated that, 
while an institution's commitment to diversity is important, each 
regulated entity should be allowed to demonstrate this commitment in 
its own way and cautioned against assuming that extensive and 
formalized policies demonstrate an organization's commitment to 
diversity. This commenter noted, as an example, that it would be more 
appropriate for community banks to apply their efforts to community 
outreach rather than to creating documentation to show compliance.
    Several commenters recommended changes to these standards. One 
commenter suggested adding language stating that diversity and 
inclusion are best served when an entity assigns senior leadership to 
these initiatives and provides this leadership with the appropriate 
resources. Another commenter suggested that the standards specify the 
appropriate credentials for the personnel responsible for an entity's 
diversity efforts, such as experience, a proven track record, and the 
ability to help others understand and embrace diversity efforts.
    The Agencies are encouraged that the commenters generally 
acknowledge how essential organizational commitment is to advancing 
diversity and inclusion. The Agencies also agree that the senior 
official responsible for an entity's diversity and inclusion efforts 
preferably should have relevant knowledge and experience, and they have 
revised this standard to reflect this change. Otherwise, the final 
standards on Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion are 
consistent with the Proposal.
2. Workforce Profile and Employment Practices
    The Proposal provided examples of how an entity could promote the 
fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce and noted that 
many entities evaluate their business objectives using analytical tools 
to track and measure workforce inclusiveness. It set out standards to 
assess an entity's workforce profile and employment practices, which 
included using the data prepared in connection with EEO-1 Reports and 
Affirmative Action Plans (AAPs),\5\ as well as other metrics. The 
standards also addressed whether an entity holds its management 
accountable for these efforts and creates diverse applicant pools for 
workforce opportunities when hiring from both within and outside of an 
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ AAPs are required of certain government contractors and 
monitored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters expressed concern about using the EEO-1 Report 
data for this purpose, pointing out that it provides a purely numerical 
view of workforce diversity and gives little insight into the impact of 
diversity efforts. One commenter suggested that EEO-1 Report data 
should constitute, at most, a small element of a more holistic view of 
an entity's diversity practices. This commenter recommended that the 
Agencies revise the standards to focus on an entity's diversity efforts 
and to take into account: industry-specific considerations; the 
relevant labor market; and ongoing efforts to facilitate, promote and 
increase diversity. Other commenters observed that EEO-1 Report data 
does not address concepts of diversity that are broader than gender, 
race, and ethnicity or the extent of diversity within an entity's 
management and senior management ranks.
    Still other commenters were concerned that references in the 
Proposal to ``metrics,'' as a tool for

[[Page 33019]]

evaluating and assessing workforce diversity and inclusion efforts, 
could be interpreted to encourage or require the unlawful use of 
quotas, classifications, or preferences. These commenters recommended 
that the Agencies revise the standards to clarify that the purpose of 
metrics is not to force certain outcomes and that the standards are not 
intended to encourage or require an entity to undertake an assessment 
based on numerical goals, metrics, or percentages.
    Commenters also addressed the specific standard that would hold an 
entity's management accountable for diversity and inclusion efforts. 
One commenter stated that it is not clear who this standard is intended 
to cover and what constitutes accountability. Another commenter argued 
that this standard is overbroad and implies that regulated entities are 
required to include diversity and inclusion measurements in the 
performance evaluations of all management personnel. This commenter 
also expressed concern that this requirement could lead to unlawful 
employment decisions focused on achieving quotas and suggested that 
only the senior-level official(s) responsible for overseeing and 
directing diversity efforts, not all management personnel, should be 
held accountable. Another group of commenters observed, however, that 
accountability may be achieved most effectively by linking an entity's 
diversity and inclusion efforts to its leaders' performance assessments 
and compensation.
    In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies have retained the 
reference to EEO-1 Report and AAP data. The Agencies recognize that the 
information generated from these sources is limited, particularly for 
entities with large workforces and those that broadly define diversity. 
However, this information may provide a baseline that a company may 
find useful. To address commenters who expressed concern that the data 
coming from these particular sources is limited or narrow, the Agencies 
have added a statement to encourage entities to use other analytical 
tools that they may find helpful. Finally, due to a change in how the 
Agencies organized the final standards, the discussion about EEO-1 
data, AAP data, and other analytical tools is located in the 
introduction to this set of standards and not in the standards 
themselves.
    With respect to references to ``metrics,'' the Agencies continue to 
believe that quantitative data is valuable for evaluating diversity and 
inclusion but know that qualitative data and information also can 
provide useful material for this purpose. In order to clarify that both 
types of resources are important, the Agencies have revised the final 
standards to reflect the importance of both quantitative and 
qualitative measurements.
    With respect to the concern expressed by some commenters that the 
proposed standards could be interpreted to encourage or require the 
unlawful use of quotas, classifications, or preferences for personnel 
actions, the Agencies note that they did not intend to require or 
encourage unlawful usage. That said, the collection and use of data on 
race, gender, and ethnicity for self-evaluation is not unlawful. To 
address this confusion, however, the Agencies added to the Policy 
Statement a new standard providing that the ``entity implements 
policies and practices related to workforce diversity and inclusion in 
a manner that complies with all applicable laws.'' The final Policy 
Statement also includes another new standard, which provides that the 
``entity ensures equal employment opportunities for all employees and 
applicants for employment and does not engage in unlawful employment 
discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity.'' The Agencies 
believe that together, these new standards will address confusion about 
whether the standards encourage or require the unlawful use of quotas, 
classifications, or preferences.
    Finally, the Agencies retained the proposed standard that 
referenced management accountability but have clarified that this 
standard applies to all levels of management. The Agencies believe that 
management accountability at all levels is an important factor to 
consider when evaluating workforce diversity and employment practices. 
In addition, the final standards provide an example of one manner of 
addressing management accountability for diversity and inclusion 
efforts.
3. Procurement and Business Practices--Supplier Diversity
    The third set of standards included in the Proposal addressed the 
leading practices related to supplier diversity. These included a 
supplier diversity policy that provides a fair opportunity for 
minority-owned and women-owned businesses to compete for procurement of 
business goods and services; methods to evaluate and assess supplier 
diversity (which may include metrics and analytics); and practices that 
promote a diverse supplier pool.
    The Agencies received many comments on this set of standards. 
Several commenters argued that the scope of 342(b)(2)(C) is limited to 
diversity in employment practices and, therefore, the Agencies exceeded 
their statutory authority by proposing supplier diversity standards. 
Others argued that these standards would unlawfully compel the use of 
private funds to promote diversity. Another group of commenters 
supported these standards and noted that entities with a commitment to 
diversity and inclusion often have supplier diversity programs. These 
commenters stated that supplier diversity can contribute to an entity's 
efficiency and innovation, reflect its customer base, promote growth 
and development, and support job creation and economic development. 
Additional commenters urged the Agencies to include stronger or 
additional standards on this topic. For example, some encouraged the 
Agencies to set targets for the percentage of an entity's procurement 
dollars that should be spent with diverse vendors and to establish 
other quantifiable measures to ensure the full and fair inclusion of 
diverse suppliers.
    After careful consideration of these comments, the Agencies have 
elected not to make any substantive changes to the standards for 
policies and practices related to supplier diversity. The Agencies 
believe that consideration of an entity's supplier diversity policies 
and practices is within the scope of section 342(b)(2)(C) and is 
appropriate for a comprehensive self-assessment. The Agencies do not 
believe, however, that it is appropriate for them to dictate 
quantifiable targets for supplier diversity and have not included 
targets in the final Policy Statement.
4. Practices To Promote Transparency
    As explained in the Proposal, transparency of an entity's diversity 
and inclusion program promotes the objectives of section 342. 
Transparency and publicity are important because they give members of 
the public information to assess an entity's diversity policies and 
practices. Accordingly, the Proposal included standards setting out the 
leading practices in this area, which include the entity making 
information about its diversity and inclusion strategic plans, 
commitment, and progress available to the public.
    Several commenters supported the goal of transparency, arguing that 
it is critical to the fair and efficient manner in which our financial 
markets operate. They also believe that transparency provides valuable 
information to an entity's management, employees, prospective 
employees, customers, and investors, as well as to the general

[[Page 33020]]

public. In contrast, other commenters expressed concern that these 
standards would be interpreted to encourage or require the release of 
proprietary, privileged or confidential information and compromise an 
entity's competitive position. This concern, they argued, would create 
a disincentive for an entity to conduct a self-assessment. Another 
commenter argued that these standards are unnecessary because regulated 
entities can achieve diversity and inclusion without disclosing this 
information, while others noted that many entities already publish 
information about their diversity and inclusion efforts.
    The Agencies believe that the goals of section 342 can be best 
achieved when an entity is transparent with respect to its diversity 
and inclusion efforts and progress. They believe that the proposed 
standards accomplished this goal in the appropriate manner and have 
included them in the final Policy Statement with no material changes.
5. Entities' Self-Assessment
    The Proposal included a section entitled ``Proposed Approach to 
Assessment,'' in which the Agencies explained that in a ``model 
assessment,'' a regulated entity would use the standards to undertake a 
self-assessment, disclose the self-assessment and other relevant 
information to the appropriate Agency, and share with the public its 
efforts to comply with the standards. The Agencies received many 
comments on this section.
    a. Implementation Comments
    A number of commenters requested more information on the frequency 
of self-assessments. To address this, the final Policy Statement 
provides that an entity with successful diversity policies and 
practices conducts a self-assessment annually and monitors and 
evaluates its performance under its diversity policies and practices on 
an ongoing basis. An annual review and ongoing monitoring are 
consistent with both leading practices and other types of business 
assessments.
    Other commenters asked for clarification on where a regulated 
entity should submit its assessment data and recommended that the 
Agencies designate a ``lead'' agency for this purpose. In the final 
Policy Statement, the Agencies clarify that entities that choose to 
share their self-assessment information with their regulator may 
provide it to the OMWI Director of the entity's primary federal 
financial regulator.\6\ The primary federal financial regulator will 
share information with other Agencies when appropriate to support 
coordination of efforts and to avoid duplication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the case of institutions identified in 12 U.S.C. 1813(q), 
the primary federal financial regulator is the `appropriate federal 
banking agency' identified in that section. For credit unions, the 
primary federal financial regulator is the NCUA. For brokers, 
dealers, transfer agents, investment advisers, municipal advisors, 
investment companies, self-regulatory organizations (including 
national securities exchanges, registered securities associations, 
registered clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities 
Rulemaking Board), nationally recognized statistical rating 
organizations, securities information processors, security-based 
swap dealers, major security-based swap participants, security-based 
swap execution facilities, and securities-based swap data 
repositories, the primary federal financial regulator is the SEC. 
For any other entity that meets the definition of `covered person' 
under 12 U.S.C. 5481(6), the primary federal financial regulator is 
the CFPB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, to assist entities in viewing the final Policy Statement 
as an integrated whole, the model assessment concepts introduced in 
this section of the Proposal are now a fifth set of standards entitled 
``Entities' Self-Assessment.''
    b. Self-Assessments
    The Agencies received many comments on the Proposal's description 
of a model assessment as a ``self-assessment.'' Some commenters viewed 
a self-assessment as a reasonable interpretation of statutory intent, 
while others asserted that it was the only permissible interpretation. 
Others expressed concern with the concept of an entity conducting its 
own assessment and questioned whether this approach either would 
undermine regulatory oversight or was inconsistent with the statute. 
Some commenters suggested that the Agencies were required by statute to 
conduct the assessments.
    In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies have retained the self-
assessment approach to assessments. While it is clear to the Agencies 
that the statute contemplates that assessments will take place, they 
interpret the statutory language as ambiguous with respect to who 
should conduct the assessments or the form that assessments should 
take. The Agencies also believe that the entities are in the best 
position to assess their own diversity policies and practices and that 
these self-assessments can provide entities with an opportunity to 
focus on areas of strength and weakness in their own policies and 
programs.
    c. Disclosure of Assessment Information to the Agencies
    The Agencies received many comments about the Proposal's 
``disclosure'' component of a model assessment. Some commenters argued 
that by encouraging disclosure, the Agencies would discourage candid 
self-assessments. Another group of commenters was concerned about 
protecting the confidentiality of disclosed information and recommended 
including a safe harbor in the final standards to protect the disclosed 
information from release.
    Other commenters interpreted the statute to mandate disclosure and 
rejected the idea of a voluntary disclosure. One of these commenters 
argued that ``voluntary disclosure'' conflicted with congressional 
intent, as evidenced by the section 342(b)(4) statement that nothing in 
the directive to develop standards may be construed to require any 
specific action based on the findings of the assessment. This commenter 
argued that the phrase ``findings of the assessment'' in the statutory 
language indicates that the Agencies will obtain assessment information 
from the regulated entities and, therefore, the disclosure cannot be 
voluntary.
    One commenter expressed concern that the permissiveness of 
voluntary disclosures would invite the regulated entities to disregard 
the Agencies and treat their oversight as optional and irrelevant. This 
commenter expressed concern that very few regulated entities would 
share their assessment information with the Agencies unless they were 
required to do so. Another commenter noted that financial institutions 
have been required to disclose information on lending practices, 
including lending by ethnic group, since 1975 pursuant to the Home 
Mortgage Disclosure Act and that this requirement has provided 
transparency without endangering the institutions.
    With respect to the final Policy Statement, the Agencies view a 
voluntary scheme as more consistent with the framework set out by the 
statute, and therefore, the final Policy Statement provides for 
voluntary disclosure. Nevertheless, the final Policy Statement reflects 
leading practices with respect to transparency by encouraging the 
entities to disclose assessment information to the Agencies. Entities 
submitting information may designate such information as confidential 
commercial information as appropriate, and the Agencies will follow the 
Freedom of Information Act in the event of requests for particular 
submissions.
    d. Entities' Disclosure of Assessment Information to the Public
    Finally, the Agencies received comments about the Proposal's 
provision encouraging entities to disclose to the public information 
about their efforts to comply with the standards. Some commenters 
supported

[[Page 33021]]

this public disclosure, asserting that it was necessary to increase 
public accountability. Others argued that an entity that elects to 
publish information about its diversity progress may not undertake an 
honest self-assessment of this progress. Other commenters stated that 
public disclosures which focus on metrics may have the unintended 
consequence of encouraging numerical targets, rather than diversity and 
inclusion. These commenters also stated that publicly disclosing 
certain information could expose an entity to potential liability or 
reveal trade secrets.
    In the final Policy Statement, the Agencies have retained the 
concept of an entity publicly displaying information regarding its 
efforts with respect to the standards. As noted above, disclosure 
reflects leading practices with respect to transparency. In addition, 
the final Policy Statement, consistent with the Proposal, also does not 
specify the types of information that regulated entities might consider 
making publicly available. The Agencies believe the regulated entities 
should have discretion to decide the type of information and the level 
of detail to share publicly.
6. Use of Assessment Information by Agencies
    In describing the model assessment, the Proposal stated that the 
Agencies would monitor the information submitted to them as a resource 
in carrying out their diversity and inclusion responsibilities. It also 
stated that the Agencies may periodically review entities' public 
information to monitor diversity and inclusion practices. The Agencies 
may contact entities and other interested parties to discuss diversity 
and inclusion practices and methods of assessment. The Agencies did not 
receive any specific or material comments on these statements.
    In the final Policy Statement, these concepts are retained. The 
final Policy Statement states that the Agencies may publish information 
disclosed to them provided they do not identify a particular entity or 
individual or disclose confidential business information in an effort 
to balance concerns about confidentiality of information with the 
importance of sharing information.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) \7\ generally provides 
that a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
approved the collection and the agency has obtained a valid OMB control 
number. Furthermore, no person may be subject to a collection of 
information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. 
These provisions apply to any collection of information, regardless of 
whether the responses to the collection are voluntary or mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PRA requires an agency to provide the public and other agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on any proposed information collection. 
This helps to ensure that: the public understands the agency's 
collection and instructions; respondents provide the requested data in 
the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is 
minimized; interested parties understand the collection instruments; 
and the agency can properly assess the impact of its information 
collection on respondents.
    This Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing 
the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the 
Agencies contains a collection of information within the meaning of the 
PRA. The Agencies intend to submit this new collection of information 
to OMB for review and approval in accordance with the PRA and its 
implementing regulations. For collections of information not contained 
in a proposed rule, the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 
notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of 
information and to allow 60 days for public comment. To comply with 
this requirement, the Agencies are publishing this notice in 
conjunction with the issuance of this final Policy Statement.

A. Overview of the Collection of Information

1. Description of the Collection of Information and Proposed Use
    The title for the proposed collection of information is:
     Joint Standards for Assessing Diversity Policies and 
Practices
    The Joint Standards entitled ``Practices to Promote Transparency of 
Organizational Diversity and Inclusion'' contemplate that the regulated 
entity is transparent about its diversity and inclusion activities by 
making certain information available to the public annually on its Web 
site or in other appropriate communications, in a manner reflective of 
the entity's size and other characteristics. The information noted in 
this standard is: The entity's diversity and inclusion strategic plan; 
its policy on its commitment to diversity and inclusion; progress 
toward achieving diversity and inclusion in its workforce and 
procurement activities (which may include the entity's current 
workforce and supplier demographic profiles); and employment and 
procurement opportunities available at the entity that promote 
diversity.
    In addition, the Joint Standards entitled ``Self-Assessment'' 
envision that the regulated entity uses the Joint Standards to conduct 
a voluntary self-assessment of its diversity policies and practices at 
least annually, provides to its primary federal financial regulator 
information pertaining to the entity's self-assessment of diversity 
policies and practices, and publishes information pertaining to its 
efforts with respect to the standards. The information provided to the 
Agencies would be used to monitor progress and trends among regulated 
entities with regard to diversity and inclusion in employment and 
contracting activities, and to identify and publicize promising 
diversity policies and practices.
2. Description of Likely Respondents and Estimate of Annual Burden
    The collections of information contemplated by the Joint Standards 
would impose no new recordkeeping burdens as regulated entities would 
only publish or provide information pertaining to diversity policies 
and practices that they maintain during the normal course of business. 
The Agencies estimate that it would take a regulated entity 
approximately 12 burden hours on average to annually publish 
information pertaining to diversity policies and practices on the 
entity's Web site or in other appropriate communications, and retrieve 
and submit information pertaining to the entity's self-assessment of 
its diversity policies and practices to the primary federal financial 
regulator. The Agencies estimate the total burden for all regulated 
entities as follows:
    Information Collection: Joint Standards for Assessing Diversity 
Policies and Practices.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: \8\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The burden estimates are based on the average number of 
responses anticipated by each Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC: 215.
    Board: 488.
    FDIC: 398.
    NCUA: 367.
    CFPB: 750.
    SEC: 1,250.
    Frequency of Collection: Annual.
    Average Response Time per Respondent: 12 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:

[[Page 33022]]

    OCC: 2,580 hours.
    Board: 5,856 hours.
    FDIC: 4,776 hours.
    NCUA: 4,404 hours.
    CFPB: 9,000 hours.
    SEC: 15,000 hours.
    Obligation to respond: Voluntary.

B. Solicitation of Public Comments

    The Agencies specifically invite comment on: (a) Whether the 
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of 
the Agencies' functions, including whether the information will have 
practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Agencies' estimate of the 
information collection burden, including the validity of the methods 
and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information proposed to be collected; (d) Ways to 
minimize the information collection burden on respondents, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology; and (e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs 
and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to 
provide information.
    The Agencies will summarize the comments submitted in response to 
this notice and/or include them in the request for OMB approval. All 
comments will be a matter of public record.
    Commenters may submit their comments to the Agencies at:
    OCC: Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC 
is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by 
email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory 
Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 
Attention: 1557-NEW, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, 
Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 
465-4326 or by electronic mail to regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. You may 
personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that 
visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by 
calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to 
present valid government-issued photo identification and to submit to 
security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.
    Board: You may submit comments, identified by OMWI Policy 
Statement, by any of the following methods:
     Agency Web site: https://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments at https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include OMB 
number in the subject line of the message.
     FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
     Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20551.
    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, 
unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will 
not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public 
comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room MP-
500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
    FDIC: You may submit comments on this information collection, which 
should refer to ``Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for 
Assessing the Diversity,'' by any of the following methods:
    Agency Web site: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the FDIC Web site.
    Email: comments@FDIC.gov. Include ``Policy Statement Establishing 
Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity'' in the subject line of 
the message.
    Mail: Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, MB-3074, or John Popeo, Counsel, MB-
3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20429.
    NCUA: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on 
the information collection to Jessica Khouri, National Credit Union 
Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428, Fax 
No. 703-837-2861, Email: OCIOPRA@ncua.gov.
    CFPB: You may submit comments, identified by the title of the 
information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket 
number (see above), by any of the following methods:
     Electronic: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA 
Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20002.
    SEC: Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email 
to PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov, and include ``SEC File 270-664 OMWI Policy 
Statement'' in the subject line of the message.

Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing 
the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the 
Agencies

I. Introduction

    Section 342(b)(2)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) requires the Directors 
of the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) to develop 
standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of the 
entities regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Bureau of 
Consumer Financial Protection, and Securities and Exchange Commission 
(Agencies). To promote consistency, the Agencies worked together to 
develop joint standards (Standards) for assessing diversity policies 
and practices. This Interagency Policy Statement (Policy Statement) 
announces those Standards.
    This document is a general statement of policy under the 
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It does not create new 
legal obligations. Use of the Standards by a regulated entity is 
voluntary. The Agencies will not use their examination or supervisory 
processes in connection with these Standards.
    For purposes of this Policy Statement, the Agencies define 
``diversity'' to refer to minorities, as defined in section 342(g)(3) 
of the Dodd-Frank Act (that is, Black Americans, Native Americans, 
Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans), and women. This definition of 
diversity does not preclude an entity from using a broader definition 
with regard to these standards. In addition, as used in this Policy 
Statement, the Agencies define ``inclusion'' to mean a process to 
create and maintain a positive work environment that values individual 
similarities and differences, so that all can reach their potential and 
maximize their contributions to an organization. The Standards set 
forth below may be used to assess policies and practices that impact 
the inclusion

[[Page 33023]]

of minorities and women in the regulated entity's workforce and the 
existence of minority-owned and women-owned businesses among a 
regulated entity's suppliers of products and services.

II. Joint Standards

    The Agencies designed these Standards to provide a framework for an 
entity to create and strengthen its diversity policies and practices, 
including its organizational commitment to diversity, workforce and 
employment practices, procurement and business practices, and practices 
to promote transparency of organizational diversity and inclusion. The 
Agencies recognize that each entity is unique with respect to 
characteristics such as its size, location, and structure. When 
drafting these standards, the Agencies focused primarily on 
institutions with more than 100 employees. The Agencies know that 
institutions that are small or located in remote areas face different 
challenges and have different options available to them compared to 
entities that are larger or located in more urban areas. The Agencies 
encourage each entity to use these Standards in a manner appropriate to 
its unique characteristics. Finally, the Agencies intend that the 
Standards will address an entity's U.S. operations.

(1) Organizational Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

    The leadership of an organization with successful diversity 
policies and practices demonstrates its commitment to diversity and 
inclusion. Leadership comes from the governing body, such as a board of 
directors, as well as senior officials and those managing the 
organization on a day-to-day basis. These Standards inform how an 
entity promotes diversity and inclusion in both employment and 
contracting and how it fosters a corporate culture that embraces 
diversity and inclusion.
Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other 
characteristics,
     The entity includes diversity and inclusion considerations 
in both employment and contracting as an important part of its 
strategic plan for recruiting, hiring, retention, and promotion.
     The entity has a diversity and inclusion policy that is 
approved and supported by senior leadership, including senior 
management and the board of directors.
     The entity provides regular progress reports to the board 
and senior management.
     The entity regularly conducts training and provides 
educational opportunities on equal employment opportunity and on 
diversity and inclusion.
     The entity has a senior level official, preferably with 
knowledge of and experience in diversity and inclusion policies and 
practices, who oversees and directs the entity's diversity and 
inclusion efforts. For example, this official may be an executive-level 
Diversity Officer (or equivalent position) with dedicated resources to 
support diversity strategies and initiatives.
     The entity takes proactive steps to promote a diverse pool 
of candidates, including women and minorities, in its hiring, 
recruiting, retention, and promotion, as well as in its selection of 
board members, senior management, and other senior leadership 
positions.

(2) Workforce Profile and Employment Practices

    Many entities promote the fair inclusion of minorities and women in 
their workforce by publicizing employment opportunities, creating 
relationships with minority and women professional organizations and 
educational institutions, creating a culture that values the 
contribution of all employees, and encouraging a focus on these 
objectives when evaluating the performance of managers. Entities with 
successful diversity and inclusion programs also regularly evaluate 
their programs and identify areas to be improved.
    Entities use various analytical tools to evaluate a wide range of 
business objectives, including metrics to track and measure the 
inclusiveness of their workforce (e.g., race, ethnicity, and gender). 
Entities that are subject to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and 
the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs currently collect 
and maintain data and supporting documentation that may assist in 
evaluating and assessing their policies and practices related to 
workforce diversity and inclusion. Specifically, entities that file 
EEO-1 Reports \9\ required under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 routinely track and analyze employment statistics by gender, race, 
ethnicity, and occupational group. Entities that develop and implement 
the affirmative action programs required under the regulations 
implementing Executive Order 11246 track and analyze employer-created 
job groups. Entities also are encouraged to use other analytical tools 
that they may find helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Employer Information Report EEO-1 (EEO-1 Report) is 
required to be filed annually with the EEOC by (a) private employers 
with 100 or more employees and (b) federal contractors and first 
tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees that have a contract 
or subcontract of $50,000 or more or that serve as a depository of 
government funds in any amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other 
characteristics,
     The entity implements policies and practices related to 
workforce diversity and inclusion in a manner that complies with all 
applicable laws.
     The entity ensures equal employment opportunities for all 
employees and applicants for employment and does not engage in unlawful 
employment discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity.
     The entity has policies and practices that create diverse 
applicant pools for both internal and external opportunities that may 
include:
    [cir] Outreach to minority and women organizations;
    [cir] Outreach to educational institutions serving significant 
minority and women student populations; and
    [cir] Participation in conferences, workshops, and other events to 
attract minorities and women and to inform them of employment and 
promotion opportunities.
     The entity utilizes both quantitative and qualitative 
measurements to assess its workforce diversity and inclusion efforts. 
These efforts may be reflected, for example, in applicant tracking, 
hiring, promotions, separations (voluntary and involuntary), career 
development, and retention across all levels and occupations of the 
entity, including the executive and managerial ranks.
     The entity holds management at all levels accountable for 
diversity and inclusion efforts, for example by ensuring that such 
efforts align with business strategies and individual performance 
plans.

(3) Procurement and Business Practices--Supplier Diversity

    Companies increasingly understand the competitive advantage of 
having a broad selection of available suppliers to choose from with 
respect to factors such as price, quality, attention to detail, and 
future relationship building. A number of entities have achieved 
success at

[[Page 33024]]

expanding available business options by increasing outreach to 
minority-owned and women-owned businesses.
    As in the employment context, entities often use metrics to 
identify the baseline of how much they spend procuring and contracting 
for goods and services, how much they spend with minority-owned and 
women-owned businesses, and the availability of relevant minority-owned 
and women-owned businesses, as well as changes over time. Similarly, 
entities may use outreach to inform minority-owned and women-owned 
businesses (and affinity groups representing these constituencies) of 
these opportunities and of the procurement process.
    In addition, entities' prime contractors often use subcontractors 
to fulfill the obligations of various contracts. The use of minority-
owned and women-owned businesses as subcontractors provides valuable 
opportunities for both the minority-owned and women-owned businesses 
and the prime contractor. Entities may encourage the use of minority-
owned and women-owned subcontractors by incorporating this objective in 
their business contracts.
Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other 
characteristics,
     The entity has a supplier diversity policy that provides 
for a fair opportunity for minority-owned and women-owned businesses to 
compete for procurement of business goods and services. This includes 
contracts of all types, including contracts for the issuance or 
guarantee of any debt, equity, or security, the sale of assets, the 
management of the entity's assets, and the development of the entity's 
equity investments.
     The entity has methods to evaluate its supplier diversity, 
which may include metrics and analytics related to:
    [cir] Annual procurement spending;
    [cir] Percentage of contract dollars awarded to minority-owned and 
women-owned business contractors by race, ethnicity, and gender; and
    [cir] Percentage of contracts with minority-owned and women-owned 
business sub-contractors.
     The entity has practices to promote a diverse supplier 
pool, which may include:
    [cir] Outreach to minority-owned and women-owned contractors and 
representative organizations;
    [cir] Participation in conferences, workshops, and other events to 
attract minority-owned and women-owned firms and inform them of 
contracting opportunities; and
    [cir] An ongoing process to publicize its procurement 
opportunities.

(4) Practices To Promote Transparency of Organizational Diversity and 
Inclusion

    Transparency and publicity are important aspects of assessing 
diversity policies and practices. Greater awareness and transparency 
give the public information to assess those policies and practices. 
Entities publicize information about their diversity and inclusion 
efforts through normal business methods, which include displaying 
information on their Web sites, in their promotional materials, and in 
their annual reports to shareholders, if applicable. By making public 
an entity's commitment to diversity and inclusion, its plans for 
achieving diversity and inclusion, and the metrics it uses to measure 
success in both workplace and supplier diversity, an entity informs a 
broad constituency of investors, employees, potential employees, 
suppliers, customers, and the general community about its efforts. The 
publication of this information can make new markets accessible for 
minorities and women and illustrate the progress made toward an 
important business goal.
Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other 
characteristics, the entity is transparent with respect to its 
diversity and inclusion activities by making the following information 
available to the public annually through its Web site or other 
appropriate communication methods:
     The entity's diversity and inclusion strategic plan;
     The entity's policy on its commitment to diversity and 
inclusion;
     The entity's progress toward achieving diversity and 
inclusion in its workforce and procurement activities (which may 
include the entity's current workforce and supplier demographic 
profiles); and
     Opportunities available at the entity that promote 
diversity, which may include:
    [cir] Current employment and procurement opportunities;
    [cir] Forecasts of potential employment and procurement 
opportunities; and
    [cir] The availability and use of mentorship and developmental 
programs for employees and contractors.

(5) Entities' Self-Assessment

    The Agencies interpret the term ``assessment'' to mean self-
assessment. Entities that have successful diversity policies and 
practices allocate time and resources to monitoring and evaluating 
performance under their diversity policies and practices on an ongoing 
basis. Entities are encouraged to disclose their diversity policies and 
practices, as well as information related to their assessments, to the 
Agencies and the public. Entities submitting information may designate 
such information as confidential commercial information as appropriate, 
and the Agencies will follow the Freedom of Information Act in the 
event of requests for particular submissions.
Standards
    In a manner reflective of the individual entity's size and other 
characteristics,
     The entity uses the Standards to conduct self-assessments 
of its diversity policies and practices annually.
     The entity monitors and evaluates its performance under 
its diversity policies and practices on an ongoing basis.
     The entity provides information pertaining to the self-
assessments of its diversity policies and practices to the OMWI 
Director of its primary federal financial regulator.
     The entity publishes information pertaining to its efforts 
with respect to the Standards.

III. Use of Assessment Information by Agencies

    The Agencies may use information submitted to them to monitor 
progress and trends in the financial services industry with regard to 
diversity and inclusion in employment and contracting activities and to 
identify and highlight those policies and practices that have been 
successful. The primary federal financial regulator will share 
information with other agencies when appropriate to support 
coordination of efforts and to avoid duplication. The OMWI Directors 
will also continue to reach out to regulated entities and other 
interested parties to discuss diversity and inclusion practices and 
methods of assessment. The Agencies may publish information disclosed 
to them, such as best practices, in any form that does not identify a 
particular entity or individual or disclose confidential business 
information.


[[Page 33025]]


    Dated: May 22, 2015.
Thomas J. Curry,
Comptroller of the Currency.
    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, June 3, 2015.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    Dated at Washington, DC, this 21st of May, 2015.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on May 26, 
2015.
John H. Brolin,
Senior Staff Attorney.
    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Richard Cordray,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Date: May 27, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14126 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 6741-01-P; 7590-01-P; 4810-AM-P; 
8010-01-P